Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4527 (ALL)

Santosh v. State of U. P.

2026-03-25

Manoj Bajaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Petitioner-Accused has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2017, titled State Vs. Santosh, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2006, under Sections 149, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaygarh, District Aligarh, whereby his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely, Vipin, Pramod and Kailash Chandra as additional accused has been dismissed. 2. When the case is called, no one has appeared on behalf of accused-petitioner. 3. A perusal of the case file would show that the above noticed F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a written complaint given by Lakhan Singh s/o Faguniram, wherein it is alleged that his minor daughter aged about 16 years had gone to answer the call of nature on 26.4.2006 at around 9:00 p.m. in the fields of Thakur Tejpal Singh. Smt. Sunita Devi w/o Lal Singh had also gone to a nearby place for the same purpose, who heard cries of complainant's daughter and saw with the torch light that Vipin Kumar s/o Chandra Prakash Gupta, Pramod Kumar s/o Gajendra Singh and Kailash Chandra s/o Girraj Prakash Gupta had gripped complainant's daughter, and were doing wrong act with her. On hearing the noise of Sunita, Lal Singh s/o Banshidhar, Nihal Singh s/o Banwarilal, Ramesh Chandra s/o Faguniram, Vikas Kumar s/o Nempal Singh and others arrived at the spot and found complainant's daughter dead and naked with torn clothes. Vipin Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Kailash Chandra were seen escaping from the place of occurrence and the villagers tried to apprehend them, but they all pushed the villagers and managed to run away. 4. The complainant alleged that all the three accused persons had committed wrong act with his daughter and murdered her. The complainant left the dead body at the place of occurrence and came to the police station for lodging the report and requested for necessary legal action. 5. Broadly, on these allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons namely, Vipin Kumar, Pramod Kumar and Kailash Chandra for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/St Act. 6. 5. Broadly, on these allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons namely, Vipin Kumar, Pramod Kumar and Kailash Chandra for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC/St Act. 6. After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted, which was later on entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police - Ramesh Chandra Gupta, who found all the three accused persons named in the F.I.R. as innocent and sent Lakhan, Ramesh Nihal @ Nehna, Santosh and Kalu to face trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. The charges against the accused persons were framed on 19.7.2007 and 7.9.2007, who pleaded not guilty and thereafter, the prosecution adduced its evidence. 7. Notably, the petitioner disengaged himself with the proceedings whereas in respect of the rest of four accused persons, the trial bearing Sessions Trial No. 216 of 2007 concluded through judgment of conviction dated 25.5.2019 and all the four convicts were awarded a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each . In the event of non payment of fine, it was directed that the convicts shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a month. 8. Further, a perusal of the case file would show that trial of petitioner bearing Sessions Trial No. 333 of 2007 had got separated and is pending. During the pendency of the trial, accused Santosh moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely, Vipin, Pramod and Kailash Chandra as additional accused on the ground that the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly narrates about the involvement of these persons for commission of crime. Further, the reliance is placed upon the defence witness i.e. Sunita (D.W.-1), Lal Singh (D.W.-2) and Lakhan Singh (D.W.-3) to seek summoning of the additional accused as all these defence witnesses had deposd about the involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 4. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2025. 9. Further, the reliance is placed upon the defence witness i.e. Sunita (D.W.-1), Lal Singh (D.W.-2) and Lakhan Singh (D.W.-3) to seek summoning of the additional accused as all these defence witnesses had deposd about the involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 4. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2025. 9. Upon considering the material on record, particularly the ground raised in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court finds that the accused has relied upon the initial version of the F.I.R., wherein Vipin Kumar, Pramod and Kailash Chandra were named as accused by Lakhan Singh, but after completion of investigation, the complainant - Lakhan Singh himself was implicated as an accused in the case alongwith others, whereas the named accused persons were found innocent. The evidence relied upon the prosecution as well as the defence in both the trial is common and once the explanation of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the version of defence witnesses has been discarded by the trial court in its judgment dated 25.9.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence and material relied upon by accused Santosh has emerged before the trial court for the first time. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and the same is to be exercised only in cases where the evidence adduced during trial strongly suggests involvement of other person(s) in commission of alleged crime, who were not before the trial court. 10. The facts and circumstances of the case would show that the material relied upon by accused-petitioner does not even prima facie make out a case for exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. Upon examining the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, this Court finds that the trial court has carefully analyzed the application by accused-petitioner and other material on record while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 12. The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.